Turning a Blind Ideology

Perhaps, like me, you've noticed an overlap into a specific ideology within the Skeptic community, as they're sometimes referred to. There's this distinctly pro-industry mindset among certain people who are very cozy with the Skeptic crowd (as well as being rampant among the Skeptics themselves). These aren't your typical celebrity Skeptics, we're talking about people that Skeptics use as sources, and run in the same social circles.

Some are really easy to spot - they hate activists, non profit consumer groups, journalists who investigate corporate malfeasance, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and they love to defend industry.

If you were to do a Google search for someone who fits that bill, like David Zaruk for instance, he shows up with numerous Skeptics, like Dr. Kevin Folta, and Cameron J. English "freelance science writer" in addition to the Consumer Choice Center, a tobacco funded astroturf group.

Cameron is also the creative force behind the American Council on Science and Health website called Deniers for Hire where the ACSH attacks journalists and others who question industry tobacco science tactics.

ACSH has been described in Monsanto internal emails as such:

Their former president, Hank Campbell, mentions our friend Zaruk here in this totally bizarre article about Astroturfers and Friends if they were a Dungeons and Dragons team. In addition to keeping such stellar company, Zaruk harbors a dirty little secret that's not so well kept about the Skeptic community.

They give a free pass to climate science deniers...so long as they toe the line on the other fundamental conclusions of modern fake skepticism.

One example of the hard line they take on scientific topics can be found in this graphic that been distributed online.

This graphic came from GMO apostate Mark Lynas' website where he uses Celeber Cavilla and nutpicking to discredit critics of industrial agriculture by taking an explosively hot button issue like vaccination and comparing it to the polarizing issue of agricultural biotech. Glenn Stone appropriately calls the rhetorical weaponry Lynas regularly engages in "discursive ventriloquism–appropriating your opponents' voice to cast their position in an unfavorable light." In this case, he tries to portray anyone who is critical of genetic engineering as an insane tinfoil hat-wearing kook.

Skeptics insist that if you are pro science - you cannot question vaccines or GMOs. "You can't criticize one while believing the other." Let's be real, anyone who questions or criticizes GMOs or vaccines at all will immediately put themselves on the outs with Skeptics, being labeled an "Anti." (This is easily testable, scoffers.) Same with evolution. No (insert label here) allowed in Skeptic Club!

So if we apply the logic of  Mr. Lynas and look at the other unquestionable conclusions of modern skepticism, what do we find?

Course taught by Celebrity Skeptic Kevin M. Folta at UF

Consistently, we come across these main four, but many such similar lists exist with slight variations.

Share this meme to show the world how you Critical Think all by yourself!

Do not worry about the PCBs and PFAS in the water behind me though...

Despite these lists of conclusions Skeptics are obliged to pledge their uncritical and undying allegiance to should they want to be seen as "science literate" and "critical thinkers" there is the one issue mentioned at the outset where those social rules get a little bit loosey goosey. Climate change.

David Zaruk is not the only friend of the Skeptics whose ideas on climate change goes against club conclusion (and against the overwhelming scientific evidence).  One can only speculate on why this is exactly.

Not only do Skeptics regularly use several of these people as sources, but they also promote them and vice versa, as well as attending events with them as I have documented here before.

Recently, writer and coal baron Matt Ridley who was once described as a "climate-change-denier villain" wrote this steaming hot fucking garbage pile published in the UK Spectator. Genetic Literacy Project picked it up of course, and our good friend Kevin Folta sang Matt's praises on Twitter.

Folta: This needed to be said 'because he's defending Roundup, er, ah, I mean science! Yes that's right!

Ridley isn't the only climate change denier Folta has publicly praised. Patrick Moore, founder of Golden Rice Now, (not Greenpeace) has been mentioned by Kevin on Twitter also.

The POTUS Tweets Moore's comments about climate change. 

Folta promotes Moore's organization.

You are the wind beneath my wings.

Another fine example of discursive ventriloquism is found in this We Love GMOs and Vaccines, graphic.

Clearly a copycat of the meme Mark Lynas shared on his website above, the theme of nutpicking and zero tolerance for deviation from the Skeptic belief set continues.

And yet, the creator of this list also turns a blind eye to a couple of climate change deniers when it suits his beliefs.

The Intercept reports that Dick Taverne has "argued in the House of Lords that as much as 80 percent of global warming might be attributable to solar activity, even though that theory had been discredited two years earlier."

We Love GMOs and Vaccines has also promoted an article written by Bjorn Lomborg who has been granted the distinction of being in a top ten list of climate change deniers.

To be fair, We Love GMOs and Vaccines founder did wag his finger at a couple other climate change deniers once with this exercise in virtue signalling that was basically ignored by other Skeptics. Because blind eye, you know.

Mark Lynas mentioned earlier, plays similar games when it comes to deniers. Owen Patterson (brother-in-law to Matt Ridley) spoke at an Alliance for Science event in 2016.

How likely then are we to see them host someone with differing views on say GMOs, then?

Empathy Deficiency Syndrome

Abbey Stanford describes herself as "a writer who has been living with a chronic neurological disorder since my early teens, but which was only diagnosed 3 years ago. I often write about disability and the effects of illness, as well as wider issues such as women and those from lower-income backgrounds. I often write with humour to address serious issues, especially those around my own health."

On Dec 28th she made a tweet which I rather tend to agree with.

People who take advantage of sick and suffering people, have a special place on my shit list. Another special place on that list belongs to people who pretend they are the champions of sick and suffering people, waving their science flags,

bravely fighting the quacks on behalf of the innocent. When in reality...

...they view the victims as punching bags not worthy of an ounce of common decency. 

Somehow, and I don't care how many science degrees you have, or how "evidence based" you claim to be,  it's kinda difficult to accept that loads of people are really going around pretending to have life-changing chronic illnesses for attention or because they are bored. Even a person with a mental illness that would cause delusions or pathological attention seeking still has a real illness. They are sick, and they deserve compassion, not derision from up on your high science horse.

Someone like SciBabe who has a couple of chronic conditions herself, shows her true colors in this now deleted post. Her Skeptic fans, even when confronted with evidence, which they are so fond of, still do a song and dance routine to try to cover for their favorite dirty joking porn critic as I quickly found out the other day.

Apologies for the epic screenshots, but I got such a laugh out of this exchange that I just had to share. Skeptics are not immune to the things they accuse so many others of. When confronted with evidence, they say that they change their minds. But in my experience they try to infer that you are a kook, and whip out all manner of logical fallacies. In this case, all to protect one of their club celebrities. And for what?

Skeptics claim to be fighting for the little guy - protecting the public from 'woo' and 'quackery'. But is their activity having a net positive effect and helping people that are suffering and sick? Or, is this behavior really just a cover for their hatred of certain groups of people?

Vaccinate your damn kids or we will stab them with a rusty nail! Why won't you listen to us?!?

They definitely have their favorite punching bags, and Lyme disease I've noticed is a big one. 

In this uniformed, painfully ignorant post from Rebecca over at Skepchick, she displays the same attitude as our previous examples.

"It’s because David doesn’t have Lyme Disease. His family claims he has “chronic neurological Lyme disease,” which, I am happy to inform you, does not exist. Congratulations, David, you’re cured!"

These Skeptics call 'chronic Lyme' a fake disease, but if they actually cared about helping people who are suffering, they'd be advocating for funding research into Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS) in order to answer the question of why some people remain ill after treatment with antibiotics instead of arguing over semantics.

The CDC says the cause of PTLDS is not known. Well, what are you waiting for, Skeptics? Aren't you guys the gatekeepers of all things science?

One surefire way to keep people from wasting time and money on miracle cures and scam artists like this is to develop accurate tests to look for the presence of the disease, thus answering the question of whether or not persistent infection is a cause of some people not getting well after treatment.

People with misunderstood and stigmatized ailments could really use help - but Skeptics are busy selling t-shirts, doing podcasts, and making You Tube videos and snotty memes. That debunking and self promotion takes precedence for these people really says it all, even if they are verbally stating that they care or even retweet Ms. Stanford's thread at the beginning. This is all an act.

Science was not created to use as a power play against people you don't like, to use sick people as a punchline or to pretend you are a champion of the people, fighting quacks on their behalf.

Real ethical skeptics and scientists put the knowledge they gain from the scientific method to good use to help people and solve problems. Even fake diseases can save lives.

History gives us plenty of examples where a syndrome or illness or cause thereof was denied by many in medicine or by Skeptics. Such closed minded individuals will not be the ones who solve our most pressing mystery ailments. Do not rely on them for an unbiased take when it comes to these issues. Look for those who show compassion and bravery to speak on behalf of those who are ill, advocate for patients, and support using science to find answers.